Typical of Platts. If anyone didn't read the bill it was Rep Platts. If we could do better with a different bill, where is Rep Platts, and for that matter Nixon Republican (Pres Nixon want health care oh, what was it, 40 years ago?) with a workable plan.
First, you have to have universal participation (note, not "coverage") that requires everyone to have insurance. Universal coverage means I can wait until I am deathly ill and sign up for higher coverage. We have universal partipation for worker's comp for all employees, which is a Federal program. We fine companies and individuals who don't particpate.
Second, the brutal truth is that 1/7th of the economy isn't health care. 1/10th is health care, the other portion is a combination of health insurance administration expenses and bonuses. All things considered, I'd rather keep that portion in my pocket or at least pay it to the person taking care of me, not some nameless insurance exec who has developed the latest technique for denying my claim.
According the to US Courts web site, Bankruptcies are up 31% for 2008 at over 1 million. Business Week reports that 62% are because of health care bills. 600K less bankruptcies is anti-american?
Meh?
GM & Chrysler went bankrupt at least in part due to heath benefits they agreed to pay.(I don't exuse the fact they were very poorly run - the guy that ran Home Depot into the ground was in charge of Chrysler when it went under.) But the point is, the U.S. can't compete against companies who's workers are taken care of in systems of universal participation - whether it is single provider (U.K.), single payer (Canada) or private insurance (EU). Why is CAT not in York anymore and creating a ton of jobs in China?
Clearly, the free market isn't working and I am reluctant to leave it to "market forces" when the idots in charge of the "markets" just drove our economy off a cliff.
Is it a bad bill? Maybe, but come up with SOMETHING better. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.